Evolution as mental concept

[freeztar]

Hydrogenbond has asserted, at least on one occasion, that he is not a creationist, but that's not relevant to the discussion. If you have concerns about posts, please use the "report post" feature by clicking on the red box in the upper right corner of any post. Otherwise, let's continue on with the discussion and focus on what people are saying, rather than who is saying it. :shrug:

[Turtle]

Moderator issue - answer please! Both Turtle and Pyrotex seem to imply that Hydrogen Bond is Pro-Creationism and anti-evolution theory; is there any evidence of this? I ask because I'm going by his posts here, not others he may have made, which seem like mine on this thread, in that they are putting forward another point of view that isn't necessarily anti-Darwinism but I accept I may be wrong.

 

good grief! i can't get over how some of you old men whine*. well, metaphorically speaking of course and it's no doubt inherited as a mental concept or at least i say it is. anyway, i quoted h-blond's "i attack evolution" in this very thread and that's clear enough. it is true for his every post on evolution. now having read 95% of all posts at hypog, i'm more of an authority on what was said or not than you, oh oracle of the page.

 

now this ongoing meme of "attack the idea & not the person" just doesn't cut it for me. this is a private business with a clear mission statement & a set of rules laid out for its accomplishment. let me then make an analogy. gambling casinos are private businesses with clear mission statements & sets of rules laid out for their accomplishment & not only do they watch for cheats & counters & pick-pockets & such, they keep records on them and when one shows up, they don't wait to see if they evil-do, before they throw them out. nor do they make some general announcement about bad behavior in some misplaced ploy to not offend someone. in other words, ad hominem is not some absolute logical fallacy; it is relative.

 

now as long as the powers-that-be are content to let these unsupported (read no hyper-links or sources per the Hypography mission statement) babbles go on, then i'm content to call them & they who post them the spades they be. conceptually in a mental way, that's how i have evolved to roll. :shrug: :eek2:

 

* whining - definition of whining by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[modest]

I have never seen matter organize matter because the inanimate has no power to move in thought or action

 

It's funny: Thales of Miletus thought the same thing. He thought, like most people of the time did, that matter had no impetus of motion. Only life, which had a soul, could cause motion. Then he noticed that certain kinds of metal attract iron and his natural conclusion was "loadstone attracts iron because it has a soul".

 

Good times :hihi:

 

~modest

[paigetheoracle]

Hydrogenbond has asserted, at least on one occasion, that he is not a creationist, but that's not relevant to the discussion. If you have concerns about posts, please use the "report post" feature by clicking on the red box in the upper right corner of any post. Otherwise, let's continue on with the discussion and focus on what people are saying, rather than who is saying it.

 

That's fine - I just thought the subject was getting side tracked because of this situation.

[Turtle]

gonna twist the bilbo; if you're squeamish, dear tender juicy readers, you may want to look away. ;)

 

That's fine - I just thought the subject was getting side tracked because of this situation.

 

you wish. the question of motivation for attacking evolution aside for the moment, i refer you to your own early attack and the context in which you mounted it. to whit:

...Yes evolution does have a more generalized meaning and that is because people in the past, who defined it this way, saw what I can see now - at least to a degree and applied it in a general, not specific way as you lot as scientists are doing. ...

 

so, you cast scientists, per se the scientific method, in a derogatory light, & since this is a Science web forum, i have to wonder about the motivation for whacking the wasps' nest if i may make an analogy. much less a plaintive tone when you get stung for your trouble. yeah; the person's motivation for attacking science. your motivation. the hominem as it were. i mean really; what is philosphy if not "of the person"?

 

so paiger, exactly what is the root of your mental concept of evolution and the scientific method that so gets your panties in a bunch, if not religion. :shrug: i expect a legit list, with supporting arguments and where applicable supporting sources/links. who attacks evolution & why; that's the op aint it?

 

back to you bob. :shrug:

[paigetheoracle]

gonna twist the bilbo; if you're squeamish, dear tender juicy readers, you may want to look away. ;)

 

 

 

you wish. the question of motivation for attacking evolution aside for the moment, i refer you to your own early attack and the context in which you mounted it. to whit:

 

so, you cast scientists, per se the scientific method, in a derogatory light, & since this is a Science web forum, i have to wonder about the motivation for whacking the wasps' nest if i may make an analogy. much less a plaintive tone when you get stung for your trouble. yeah; the person's motivation for attacking science. your motivation. the hominem as it were. i mean really; what is philosphy if not "of the person"? ;)

 

so paiger, exactly what is the root of your mental concept of evolution and the scientific method that so gets your panties in a bunch, if not religion. :shrug: i expect a legit list, with supporting arguments and where applicable supporting sources/links. who attacks evolution & why; that's the op aint it?

 

back to you bob.

 

Dear Turtle, I'm sorry to say this is 'your' interpretation of what I said or is this a joke? (You replied to my humour thread, so you know that 'really subtle jokes' can perplex people as stup- as sensible as me). I don't have the knowledge of this subject you do or the background, which is why I said you scientists. It wasn't derogatory but if you want to see it that way, please do (In other words I am not attacking you, so why are you defending yourself against me? Do you have doubts about your own subject or the part you play in it? (rhetorical question)).:shrug:

[Turtle]

Dear Turtle, I'm sorry to say this is 'your' interpretation of what I said or is this a joke? (You replied to my humour thread, so you know that 'really subtle jokes' can perplex people as stup- as sensible as me). I don't have the knowledge of this subject you do or the background, which is why I said you scientists. It wasn't derogatory but if you want to see it that way, please do (In other words I am not attacking you, so why are you defending yourself against me? Do you have doubts about your own subject or the part you play in it? (rhetorical question)).:lol:

 

no; it's not a joke. there is a time & place for everything. now since there is nothing else than for we all to interpret what we each say/write here, the very foundation of a forum in fact, then the tactic of simply dismissing responses out of hand is not only a non sequitar but it's against our rules.

 

i note the first 2 responses to you in this thread:

Perhaps I am missing your central thesis. If I am I would welcome your clarification. However, all you seem to have done is to repeat the false conflation of evolution as simple change with evolution as a biological process, governed by natural selection, acting on the phenotype and so promoting changes of genotype. As such this is a negative suggestion since it confuses rather than clarifies.

 

and...

 

I also am confused, Oracle.

There are several "usages" of the word "evolution" -- with meanings from the very general (like, "any slow change"), to the very specific ("Darwin's theory of biological evolution").

You seem to have tried to combine ALL those meanings together, and that is just not going to work.

Switching from one meaning to another distinct meaning in mid-thought isn't going to clarify "evolution".

It is only going to generate confusion.

Please try again.

 

your "you scientists" remark came after those. seems i'm not the only one to interpret your words as derogatory. :shrug: right from the git you were presented with explanations on why your position is flawed from a scientific view, and yet here you are again, nay still, disregarding the well reasoned responses you recieve and attacking scientists, science & the scientific method. :shrug:

 

having spent a fifteen years teaching swimming & water safety, you can think of me as the mean lifeguard that doesn't stand for any tomfoolery. :naughty: we scientists don't swim in your toilet, so don't piss in our pool. :eek2:

 

here's more illumination from the natatorium. >>

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]...

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paigetheoracle]

no; it's not a joke. there is a time & place for everything. now since there is nothing else than for we all to interpret what we each say/write here, the very foundation of a forum in fact, then the tactic of simply dismissing responses out of hand is not only a non sequitar but it's against our rules.

 

i note the first 2 responses to you in this thread:

 

 

and...

 

 

 

your "you scientists" remark came after those. seems i'm not the only one to interpret your words as derogatory. :singer: right from the git you were presented with explanations on why your position is flawed from a scientific view, and yet here you are again, nay still, disregarding the well reasoned responses you recieve and attacking scientists, science & the scientific method.

 

having spent a fifteen years teaching swimming & water safety, you can think of me as the mean lifeguard that doesn't stand for any tomfoolery. :shrug: :hyper: we scientists don't swim in your toilet, so don't piss in our pool.

 

here's more illumination from the natatorium. >> :)

 

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Right. Firstly, to answer your queries I need to know precisely what you don't understand about my ideas (please use quotes from my words and follow by what about them doesn't make sense.

 

Secondly, I meant all I said. I am not against science. You probably do know more about your subject than I do (therefore in my ignorance I am probably unwittingly stepping on toes).

 

Thirdly, with point two in mind either cut and paste quotes from relevant works for me to read here and see the points you're raising as I need something concrete to go on (and not a toilet seat - let's keep this 'light', so that we can resolve our misunderstandings with good humour, rather than get lost in 'You're wrong!' 'No, your wrong arguments!' that mean we both storm off metaphorically, failing to come to a reasonable conclusion i.e. you go 'So, that's what you mean!' and I do the same, with any hostility fading into the background of mutual understanding) or directing me to sites, where I can read the same thing (Remember I'm a layman, so keep it simple (non-technical if possible) and short as in Wiki type stuff, so I don't get bogged down in looking up a plethora of new terms or a hundred page article, where only one page covers what I need to know).

 

I am not a scientist, I am not trying to attack science and I am thankful 'some' people here can see it. I recently watched a program about James Clarke Maxwell, that said he so brilliant that everybody could see that he'd come up with the correct answers but nobody could work out how he'd made them - perhaps I am like that too you or just plain 'thick' - either way I feel like Pryotex's statement about coincidence in Moontanman's 'Future Intelligence' thread, in Linguistics - that is surrounded by coincidences that work for me, if I don't give into despair, just as society has been over the last x amount of years, to get us to this stage of life (For instance Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, where despite nudges to tell him he was onto something previously, he only finally got it years after he should, according to the legend anyway). I think all advances are a battle and odd people keep passing me the ammunition to keep going, so who am I do let them and myself down by refusing the gauntlet, when the prize is understanding and peace at the end of it, for all concerned?

 

See my pieces on Getting a Straight Answer, Humour in the Psychology thread and reaction to Pyro's futurism post in Future Evolution of Intelligence. I am currently gathering material together, which involves reading a Pulitzer Prize winning author's work, plus a post on another forum. All these pieces and this thread plus the new one will I hope shed light on what I'm trying to get at as they are all interlinked in a way that I hope will become clear as interlinked ideas and not all mine but discoveries no less.

[Turtle]

Right. Firstly, to answer your queries I need to know precisely what you don't understand about my ideas (please use quotes from my words and follow by what about them doesn't make sense.

 

i understand your ideas; that's why i'm speaking against them. :singer:

 

...

...See my pieces on Getting a Straight Answer, Humour in the Psychology thread and reaction to Pyro's futurism post in Future Evolution of Intelligence. I am currently gathering material together, which involves reading a Pulitzer Prize winning author's work, plus a post on another forum. All these pieces and this thread plus the new one will I hope shed light on what I'm trying to get at as they are all interlinked in a way that I hope will become clear as interlinked ideas and not all mine but discoveries no less.

 

i read your new threads, and they read as but plaintive complaints (i.e. whining) stemming from this thread. an attempt to distance your arguments from previous disambiguations of the scientific kind. :shrug: to whit:

In a sketch by Abbot and Costello, every time they ask for directions to the Sasquhanna Hat Company, all they got was sad stories. This emotional baggage is what stops us getting straight answers to questions and is indicative of past trauma stopping us sensing and appreciating present conditions. Somebody who lives in the present and has no past hang-ups always gives straight answers to straight questions because they have no reason to do otherwise.

 

I point this out as I've noticed The Sasquhanna Hat Company effect, interferes with some threads and posts on this site and wanted to run it by others, who might have been affected by it here as well as elsewhere, to see if anybody else had any thoughts on the subject.

 

 

plaintive - definition of plaintive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Expressing sorrow; mournful or melancholy

 

melancholy - definition of melancholy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

1. Affected with or marked by depression of the spirits; sad. See Synonyms at sad.

2. Tending to promote sadness or gloom

 

yada yada yada bleh bleh bleh. sad story indeed. recalling this hat stand's business, your sad stories may in the short run attract more window shoppers, but in the long run they keep out new buyers. :)

[paigetheoracle]

i understand your ideas; that's why i'm speaking against them. :shrug:

 

Oh well at least I now what you mean as this is straightforward (End of story/ Nothing more to be said).

...

 

 

i read your new threads, and they read as but plaintive complaints (i.e. whining) stemming from this thread. an attempt to distance your arguments from previous disambiguations of the scientific kind. :naughty: to whit:

 

Understand the first line but the second part sounds a bit confusing to me because of the way it is put - please can you clarify by rewording it or are you saying that I'm trying to deny my arguments by these other threads?:shrug:

 

plaintive - definition of plaintive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

 

melancholy - definition of melancholy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. Sad? More like of piste:evil:

 

 

yada yada yada bleh bleh bleh. sad story indeed. :cry: recalling this hat stand's business, your sad stories may in the short run attract more window shoppers, but in the long run they keep out new buyers.

 

Do you want to run a poll on that to see if this is true? (Would be interested in the results). This is why I ran one on my jokes.:confused:

[Turtle]

Do you want to run a poll on that to see if this is true? (Would be interested in the results). This is why I ran one on my jokes.:confused:

 

no thank you; i don't whine. you go ahead. i'll just go with what i writ & let the dear tender juicy well-marbled readers figure it out. . . . . . . :naughty:

[Jway]

As noted elsewhere in this subforum, I have read every single post on this thread. Including the mod entries / pleas for thread responders to go back to the original point. Which is what I intend to do.

 

Right. I am coming in from a layman's perspective. This insight is new to me but may well be old hat to some of the rest of you. As for it confusing you - this is because you are looking at it from Darwin's theory with all its subsections. Yes I am using evolution in a general way, trying to show a relationship that I can see between human society's evolution as well as individual evolution and trying to show that all evolution is inside-out but that feedback is outside-in:

 

I would say I'm totally grooving with this approach to the discussion. But at same time, in OP and then this 2nd post by author, I felt like there was a personification of Darwin's theory occurring. It kept striking me (not that this is bad) as an over simplification.

 

With that said, my understanding is that it (life as we know it/experience it) is all evolution / creation inside-out. The outside-in is a manifestation of that.

 

To clarify, life is an experiment of posited theories, based on experiment and this is the same, whether it's human civilization or animal life - this to me is the central core.

 

I'm hung up, a bit, on the "life is an experiment" part. I'm not saying (I hope) that I disagree, just wondering about that term. And my immediate thought in response was "what about subconscious routines?" Seen as 'experimental?'

 

The environment and life are inextricably mixed, with man better designed physically and mentally, to deal with changes and to create changes. Life is improved design, through experience, which is just another way of putting it (If t doesn't work as an idea, it is scrapped and superseded by new ideas).

 

What I hear you saying is, if it works - natural environment / life will retain it. And improve. Design. Sorry to break it down like that, but the "improved" part seems debatable philosophically and from what (little) I understand about biological evolution. Since I care more about the philosophical, I think of the idea of "war" as something where idea is visibly not working, but is not scrapped, nor superseded by new ideas. And that could apply to 'battles in animal kingdom,' but I'm not intending to go there. I think some would make/have made the case that life, as we experience it, is devolving, at least to some extent.

 

And the "design" part is an assumption we hold about 'natural environment.' We also can/do hold assumption(s) that there is no inherent design to natural order.

 

(Thus inside-out)

 

What I'm trying to say is that there is a mind at work here, which extrudes into the environment and withdraws, depending upon the situation it finds itself in and this variety, which occurs in nature is the same we see in human society, even if it appears different. I'm trying to get at the nitty-gritty under the apparency. If you lot are lost in the details (The Devil is in the detail) that means you may are probably too close to the subject to take this overview because you are specialists in this field (see thread in Watercooler about asking Stupid Questions).

 

I agree with you, there is a mind at work here. LOL. To claim that mind is extruding into the environment is something that I would think (at least some) scientists would like evidence for. Ways that this phenomenon of which you speak can be measured, and/or detected? To see if your claim is testable / shared.

 

While I would claim, Mind doesn't need to extrude out to manifest all that is, for as far as the eyes can see, and what (body's) eyes cannot see. Arguably, everything "comes to" the observer, in one way or another. The "apparency" is that individuals desiring experimentation need to move about and around, performing specific actions, as it is 'apparent' that the natural order does not revolve around individual minds.

 

Yes evolution does have a more generalized meaning and that is because people in the past, who defined it this way, saw what I can see now - at least to a degree and applied it in a general, not specific way as you lot as scientists are doing (Can't see the wood for the trees/ lost in the brush strokes, the critics can't see the whole picture).

 

The "lot as scientists" on a scientific discussion forum, as I observe in this thread, are asking for clarification on how you are using the term evolution, and what you mean by it, given old, new, and updated understandings of the term. Again, I see you as over simplifying the concept which has been updated. And I think that's an okay thing. Seeing the larger picture. Though it seems open to challenge when you utilize general term for specific, observable, data.

 

Great topic.

[modest]

In a similar vein, a return to the OP:

 

For your comfort, Paige, in anthropomorphizing evolution: there is a rather long, but very watchable (especially for those with a novice knowledge of evolution) lecture at UCSB by Douglas Adams that would be worth the time (if, I suppose, you have an hour to spare and looking for something to do) In particular, the part about the Kakapo and its response to newly introduced predation in New Zealand [edit: starting at 26:00-44:00].

 

YouTube - Douglas Adams: Parrots the Universe and Everything http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZG8HBuDjgc

 

How does the Kakapo respond to its threatened survival?

 

~modest

[Turtle]

As noted elsewhere in this subforum, I have read every single post on this thread. Including the mod entries / pleas for thread responders to go back to the original point. Which is what I intend to do.

 

no; we are not firing this inane business up yet again. while i may have more recently seen merit in your posts when last you visited, i just reviewed all your posts and now recall why i earlier did not. you, like h-bomb & paige, are adding nothing & taking a lot. your interuptive anti-science pro-spirituality condescending drivel may bump the numbers in the short term, but they deter new members from joining. if you really read this thread, you really know a lot of us are sick & tired of it at hypography, let alone that you are provoking me personally. i will not be provoked with impunity.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/19861-scientists-who-may-believe-in-god.html

http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=483651

 

this is trolling and you-all doing it are trolls for doing it. our rules forbid it.

 

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

...

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

...

Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

 

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

 

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

 

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

...

When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

 

The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund

Internet Trolls

 

here's a poll for ya all to vote in; report the troll posts with the red button in their reply boxes & the sooner we get rid of them. good grief.

[Jway]

your interuptive anti-science pro-spirituality condescending drivel may bump the numbers in the short term, but they deter new members from joining. if you really read this thread, you really know a lot of us are sick & tired of it at hypography, let alone that you are provoking me personally. i will not be provoked with impunity.

 

Demonstrate where you see me as anti-science.

 

The claim shows up to be as baseless and intended as insulting.

 

Who's playing the role of troll?

[freeztar]

The rules state:

3 - If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

If: It's that simple, for any side.

{return}

Else: the thread will be closed.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum, and if I can only walk with sufficient carelessness I am sure to be filled. :naughty:

[paigetheoracle]

The rules state:

3 - If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.

 

If: It's that simple, for any side.

{return}

Else: the thread will be closed.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum, and if I can only walk with sufficient carelessness I am sure to be filled. ;)

 

Thank you Freeztar! Personally I think this thread is bogging down into personal battles with Turtle attacking others, including me. This is not the point though. What is, is nothing new is coming from the thread and conflict bogs things down. I personally don't want things to go this way as it is non-productive in the way that a peaceful exchange of views isn't (Look at trench Warfare).

 

I want to reiterate that I am not attacking science and evolution, and I am sorry Turtle sees it that way, and that I would rather give up this thread than lose his friendship or the goodwill of this forum. A black hole sucks in everything and crushes it into nothing and that is what has happened here. I hate to sound like a moderator but lets end it here guys because I am (I believe in free will, so that means it's not obligatory for everybody else to butt out of this thread but I am):cheer: